It would seem with the new Queensland budget the state has become like a department store trying madly to sell off stock to keep the creditors at bay or make the books look artificially better then they are. This despite parliament being told the Government will maintain services and infrastructure by Andrew Fraser not two months ago.

Prior to the election Anna Bligh went on air saying “Some of the work we’ve done in building the infrastructure that Queensland needs right across the State – these are big projects. I’ve got the biggest building program in Australia. It’s driving growth in our economy. I’m going to maintain it. I’m not going to take money out of the Budget because I believe that building is what is needed at this tough economic time. It creates jobs and I’m committed to keeping it, even if it means a temporary deficit, because that’s what I believe government should be doing right now. The times demand it.”

I honestly have no drama with this statement, I agree that creating jobs in these times is important so we can retain a skilled workforce so when times come good we can hit the ground running, besides and investment in jobs is also an investment in the economy. A down turn is also the very best time to carry out capital works as by nature the cost blow outs will be reduced and all costs will be on the lower end of the scale. Vendors can’t demand premium prices in a downturn like they can in a boom.

All business knows that when things get quiet you have to work harder for a customers business and in a boom you can pick and choose. The highs and lows of the building industry have always come in cycles and the GFC aside a Government should be able to pick those cycles as much like with real estate they come and go about every 7 years. I think it has been a failing of the QLD Labour Government that they have been carrying out large works in boom times in the wrong area’s and it’s cost us dearly and added to our debt. That said I will cut them some slack as I truly believe the preceding Governments had a lot to do with this. Love or Hate Joh he was the last premier to actually invest in Qld infrastructure.

So lets fast forward to yesterday when Anna Bligh announces that as part of the budget we’re going to hold a fire sale, and that’s really what it is, we have a deflated market and the state is a motivated seller. There is no way in hell we’re going to get the right odds for these assets. Would you pay top dollar in a buyers market?

Lets look at why we’re a motivated seller, and it comes back to those large projects Anna has on the books they total 17 Billion over the next 4 years, and with this comes a reduction in our credit rating from AAA to AA, which means an extra 200M a year in interest payments alone as our rate got hosed in the process. We’re already 64 Billion in debt so we don’t really want to add another 17 Billion to that or the interest will cripple us.

Enter stage left the fire sale, this is the list so far as Andrew Fraser the states treasurer isn’t ruling out selling off other assets, this is likely as the Government won’t get the target numbers they are hoping for with the sale of these listed assets;

Port of Brisbane
Qld Motorways
Forest Plantations Qld
QR Coal Business
Abbot Point Coal Terminal

I would point at that all of these assets are in the black and add to general revenue for the state, however there can be some savings elsewhere by divesting them. The Government expects to see a sale price of 15 Billion over the (wait for it) next 4 years. Hmm so thats a short fall of 2 Billon, where can Anna get that from I wonder?

Onto Announcement number 2 the scraping of the states fuel subsidy this on top of an extra 17 to 22 per cent on registration fees from July 1. Anna tells us this will save the state 2.4 Billion again over 4 years.

I detect a theme here and it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. I don’t believe the Government expected the states credit rating to be reduced and this caught them off guard and the only way to fix this is to reduce borrowings and fully fund projects internally. Hence they have taken the measures outlined. 17 Billion going out over 4 years so now they have 17.4 Billion coming back in IF things go according to plan.

Some will say it’s a good thing, but I have to wonder how losing control of income streams now and in the future really helps us. This really places more burden on the private citizens. If the state is the business and the tax payers the share holders, shouldn’t the Government as the board be doing things to make us better off not worse. All this actions seem to do is move the debt around from the state to us the tax payer.

Take the subsidy for example the Brisbane City Council alone has said it will cost an additional $600k a year to run it’s fleet of vehicles, so whats next the BCC passes that onto rate payers. Business owners and the freight companies then pass those costs onto the consumer, which will have an effect on demand and put employment at greater risk.

It has a domino effect, even the smallest ripple can create a tidal wave given enough time.

It’s success is also contingent on the Government using the sales to fund these capital works, if it just goes into recurrent expenditure (paying bills) we’re just making things worse and today I see Anna say “The money saved will go into the things that are most important, running our hospitals, running our schools, police and other vital services,” all of which is recurrent expenditure. You can’t solve the problem if you continue to live outside your means. Spending more then you earn only ever ends in bankruptcy.

My other concern is you normally sell assets to bring in enough capital to close the gap in any deficit you have, these actions don’t seem to go far enough. We have a 1.6 Billion deficit this year alone and we’re expecting a deficit again next year. So while Anna is bringing in 17.4 Billion with this, she is also spending 17 Billion of it, that means only 400 million is hitting the balance sheet as extra revenue. Not enough to close the gap.

We need to see them exercise some spending control, quick cash grabs to fix immediate dilemmas does nothing to correct the fundamental issue of over spending. Andrew Fraser told us the state will lose 12 billion in revenue over the next 4 years, this means we need to pull our belt in by the exact same amount. We have seen some excessive wastage of state funds in recent years. We have a recycled water pipeline that cost us 1.7 Billion that will never be used and Anna can say all she likes that it’s an insurance policy but it won’t change the fact it’s a white elephant.

They need to get industry using that pipe line and realise some return on it, it should never have been constructed in the first place. They should have known the people wouldn’t stand for drinking recycled water from the get go and it’s just another example of their pig pigheadedness biting them on the back side. Fact is they built it so they could be seen to be doing something about water when it was a politically hot topic. This is where old Joh was different he build infrastructure he knew we’d need in the future and create jobs when it was unpopular, this mob build crap we don’t need to will ballots. That 1.7 Billion covers our deficit right there by itself.

Add to that the scam that is Traveston Dam, it’s never going to get up.. they have spent over 500 Million so far and allotted a further 1.2 Billion to the project. They need to walk way from it, and sell off the resumed land to get back some of the wasted funds. Just in those two projects we see 2.2 Billion in limbo.

I shudder to think where else funds are going awry, I think as tax payers we should also be wary of what selling off state assets brings, I mean look at power.. everyone’s power bill has risen dramatically despite promises made by Anna. Jobs were also lost as these private firms sought to restructure to generate maximum profits. Federally look at the privatisation of health, every single year since it was introduced premiums have risen compounding the fees we pay while they reduce the services they offer and now it’s gotten so bad they are rethinking the 30% rebate carrot they used to lure us all into private health funds.

I have always said that to have a strong Government you need a strong opposition and unfortunately we have neither. While I am generally a lefty I hold great hopes for John Paul as the new leader of the LNP as while I don’t want him in office I do want him to apply a blow torch.

Weather or not losing the fuel subsidy is a good or a bad thing is another story but I really get annoyed when politicians lie or think we are all fools. Anna Bligh stated yesterday “Queensland taxpayers should not have to subsidise interstate motorists – it does not represent value for taxpayers’ money.” and “The proposal by the NSW government to abolish their fuel subsidy scheme by July 1 will only make it more attractive for NSW motorists to cross the border and fill up their tanks”.

I mean come on Anna do you really think people in NSW are saying to themselves, ‘hey I need fuel I think I will go to Queensland’ and even if they did wouldn’t the GST and excise more then make up for it? Wouldn’t you rather those fund go into your revenue then your competitors?

Anna seems to think the fuel subsidy is a luxury and “bad policy”, what I think is by removing is she is breaking 2 key promises, 1. that her Government would not introduce any new taxes and 2. Andrew Fraser stated back in January before the election “Make no mistake about it. We’ll be delivering a fuel subsidy scheme. It will stay in place.”

While I can probably let the second one slide as things do change, I see the first one as pretty binding. More so when you delve into the history a bit, you see back in the day the other states decided they’d introduce a state fuel tax and it got smacked down in federal court, so the other states lobbied the federal government of the time and had the federal fuel excise increased by the amount of the now abolished fuel taxes to get around the court ruling.

The Qld Premier quite rightly said hang on we don’t want this added taxation and created the fuel subsidy to hand it back to us the people of Queensland. So you see it is a new form of taxation Anna is committing us too.

I only take issue with this in the way it was delivered, not once did Anna say you know what we just need the cash and you’ll have to lump it.. Instead she comes up with this bullshit about NSW motorists stealing our subsidy.

I have to admit I have been trying to stay out of political stoushes of late, but this I just find funny as hell.

We have the richest man in Queensland, Clive Palmer, giving the Bligh government a gob full every chance he gets and as soon as he receives some return fire he goes off running to his QC to smack Anna with a defamation suit.

Australian defamation laws are meant to protect people’s reputations from unfair attack, however usually they are nothing more than a tool to stifle free speech, even though Australia has no explicit legal protection for freedom of speech. Clive Palmer is a hypocrite as far as I can tell.

Let’s look at some of his recent comments concerning the premier shall we:

“the face of Anna Bligh is just that… it’s a face… she’s a nice woman, she looks good, so let’s vote for her”

and

“the poor woman probably hasn’t got any control of the government at all… I’m sure none of her ideas have any influence”

Now keeping those comments in mind let’s examine the Australian legal definition of defamation.

In order to bring a defamation action a plaintiff must show three things. Firstly the material must have been published, which in this context means that it has been communicated to someone other than the aggrieved person. Most commonly this takes the form of a newspaper publication or television or radio broadcast. Secondly the person aggrieved by the publication must have been identified by that publication. Identification need not be by naming the person. It can arise from the inclusion of a number of characteristics that enable a person to be identified. Where a group of people have been collectively defamed, provided the group is limited in size, each member of that group may be a potential plaintiff.

Finally the material published must be defamatory. In terms of a legal test, material is defamatory if it does one of four things – expose a person to ridicule; lower their reputation in the eyes of members of the community; cause people to shun or avoid them; or injure their professional reputation.

Now temper that with the legal concept of Fair Comment – being that as a matter of public interest the topic enables a wide range of critical material to be published as review, analysis, opinion, satire and cartoons. The mere expression of an opinion is not sufficient to attract this defence. The opinion must be based on facts and these facts must be contained within the publication or be known independently to the reader.

I would argue that Mr Palmer’s diatribe is not of public interest, but rather slanderous. There is little basis of fact in his comments and certainly no evidence of such and as a result I take note of the lengths to which key LNP parliamentarians are taking to distance themselves and play down Mr Palmer, including Tim Nichols and Lawrence Springborg.

It could be argued that these comments are merely Mr Palmer exercising his right to freedom of political communication. This may well be the case but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
If Clive Palmer can engage in this type of political commentary then surely our premier in return has the same rights, after all she is a citizen as well.

Now let’s get to the point, Clive Palmer is suing the premier as he believes Anna has “conveyed a suggestion” and “embarked on personal attacks”. Let’s take a look at what Anna actually had to say in relation to the confirmed and AEC declared donations by Mr Palmer to the LNP to the tune of $600,000.

“It’s not unusual for rich men to buy football teams, as Mr Palmer has done. What is not common and what I don’t think is good for democracy, is when they buy a political party. The question you have to ask is what Mr Palmer is getting from this.”

Ok so I can see the suggestion of impropriety in that, but it’s not a personal attack and is it baseless? Does it unfairly attack Mr Palmer and his reputation? Or is it fair comment?

To make my personal judgement on this I merely look to some very public facts.
Firstly, we have Mr Palmer himself saying to the media he will seek to influence LNP policy should they win government and that he feels he is entitled to do just that, “I may have some influence on the policies”. Why is that?

Secondly, his son Michael has been pre-selected by the LNP at just 18 years of age for the seat of Nudgee, yes I am sure that was based on merit as a recent school leaver.

Thirdly, Mr Palmer’s private helicopter has been the mode of transport of choice for the Borg in his travels all over the state.

Ever heard of the saying “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”. At some point Mr Palmer will want to see a return on investment and I think no one is naive enough to think otherwise – $600,000 buys a lot of lunches.

Is it just a coincidence that the LNP are very opposed to mining royalties, given that’s how Mr Palmer makes a living?

The return may just be that Mr Palmer sees a government that naturally aligns itself to his beliefs. I am no different, I support those people that are the closest match to my own ideological feelings but I think the point of difference is most people who donate cash to these parties aren’t also in the thick of it casting dubious political commentaries.

Partly as it does more harm than good, and I can promise Mr Palmer and the LNP one thing -this suit will do more harm to their reputation then any comment by Anna Bligh.

At the end of the day Mr Palmer made himself a viable political target when he started making very public political statements. If he can’t stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

While in general I feel Queensland could use a political shake up, there is no way Labour will lose this election, the gap will narrow but the Borg will never be a Queensland Premier, and the LNP shot themselves in the foot when they ostracised Mal Brough. Any chance they had in changing the government this time round died with him.

If you want a strong government you need a strong effective opposition and in Queensland they are a lame duck. If Labour is not fit to lead then certainly neither is the LNP. I have the election blues.